VPIEJ-L Discussion Archives
August 1992
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1992 14:02:46 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@princeton.edu>
Subject: Re: Scholarly Communication Project: computer conferences
announced
Dear Brian, Ed, Steve, Doug & Art!
I've signed on to the repost, resources and international lists.
My interest is in promoting scientific and scholarly
communication in the electronic medium, especially interactive,
peer-reviewed scholarly journals.
You asked for background information: I am the Editor of two peer
reviewed scientific journals. One, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, is a
paper journal, published by Cambridge University Press; I founded it 15
years ago and have edited ever since. The other, PSYCOLOQUY, is an
electronic journal, sponsored by the American Psychological
Association; I transformed it from a Newsletter into a peer-reviewed
journal in 1989 and have co-edited ever since (but my co-editor, Perry
London, dean of the Graduate School of Applied and Professional
Psychology, has unfortunately just passed away, so we will soon be
searching for a new co-editor).
Below are my (pertinent) publications.
Good luck on your respective lists; I look forward to reading them.
Please let me know if there is any way I can help.
Stevan Harnad
Psychology Department
Princeton University
Princeton NJ 08542
Harnad, S. (1979) Creative disagreement. The Sciences 19: 18 - 20.
Harnad, S. (ed.) (1982) Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in
scientific quality control, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harnad, S. (1984) Commentary on Garfield: Anthropology journals: What
they cite and what cites them. Current Anthropology 25: 521 - 522.
Harnad, S. (1984) Commentaries, opinions and the growth of scientific
knowledge. American Psychologist 39: 1497 - 1498.
Harnad, S. (1985) Rational disagreement in peer review. Science,
Technology and Human Values 10: 55 - 62.
Harnad, S. (1986) Policing the Paper Chase. (Review of S. Lock, A
difficult balance: Peer review in biomedical publication.)
Nature 322: 24 - 5.
Catania, A.C. & Harnad, S. (eds.) (1988) The Selection of Behavior.
The Operant Behaviorism of BF Skinner: Comments and Consequences.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harnad, S. (1990) Scholarly Skywriting and the Prepublication Continuum
of Scientific Inquiry. Psychological Science 1: 342 - 343 (reprinted in
Current Contents 45: 9-13, November 11 1991).
Harnad, S. (1991) Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the
Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review
2 (1): 39 - 53 (also reprinted in PACS Annual Review Volume 2
1992; and in R. D. Mason (ed.) Computer Conferencing: The Last Word. Beach
Holme Publishers, 1992; and in A. L. Okerson (ed.) Directory of
Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic Discussion Lists, 2nd
edition. Washington, DC, Association of Research Libraries, Office of
Scientific & Academic Publishing, 1992).
Hayes, P., Harnad, S., Perlis, D. & Block, N. (1992) Virtual Symposium
on the Virtual Mind. Minds and Machines (in press)
Harnad, S. (1992) Interactive Publication: Extending the
American Physical Society's Discipline-Specific Model for Electronic
Publishing. Serials Review, Special Issue on Economics Models for
Electronic Publishing, pp. 58 - 61.
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1992 18:32:24 -0400
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: S8486534@UCSVAX.UCS.UMASS.EDU
Subject: Copyright Concerns
In article <vpiej-l%92073108432781@vtvm1.bitnet>, you write...
>REGARDING Copyright concerns
>Recently, we in our library have been having discussions regarding
>copyright/other concerns for electronic journals which charge subscriptions (I
>suppose some of it would apply to "free" e-journals, too.
>
>Anyway, the substance of the discussion revolves around what a publisher would
>consider a good-faith effort to prevent a library user from accessing a journal
>on a library "subscription", and downloading the data and "redistributing" it
>among their colleagues, lab group, or international community peers.
>
>Things that have been discussed are forcing each user of electronic journals
>from a library subscription to stare at a copyright screen in which they "sign
>their life away" by acknowledging by hitting return, or some such thing. (An
>assumed here is that there would be a blockade in place to prevent
>non-institution people from signing on/in).
>
>--Kimberly Parker
> Yale Science Libraries
It should be obvious by now, if it wasn't already at the time of the
last re-write of the copyright/patents laws, that the system has always been
absurd, Pushed by electronic and bioengineering technologies its
reductio ad absurdum will soon be conclusively demonstrated.
Not only does the present system create objectionable monopolies when
successful, it is creating a nightmare of regulation, criminalizing a large
proportion of otherwise law-abiding, if hypocritical, citizens, and, most
important, inhibiting the coherent and timely development and distribution
of educational materials.l
Other systems of reward for creativity can be devised, yet the slow,
difficult process of international negotiation has not yet even been set in
motion. It would be far better to expend effort in this direction than to
work out stopgap rules for the petty policing of the "rights" of the
obsolescent publishing industry.
Prescott Smith psmith@educ.umass.edu
--Boundary (ID lsIUwxYl6zEGAiXpCWh7RQ)--
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 1992 18:51:00 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: GMP@PSUVM.BITNET
Subject: Copyright Concerns
- - The original note follows - -
It should be obvious by now, if it wasn't already at the time of the
last re-write of the copyright/patents laws, that the system has always been
absurd, Pushed by electronic and bioengineering technologies its
reductio ad absurdum will soon be conclusively demonstrated.
Not only does the present system create objectionable monopolies when
successful, it is creating a nightmare of regulation, criminalizing a large
proportion of otherwise law-abiding, if hypocritical, citizens, and, most
important, inhibiting the coherent and timely development and distribution
of educational materials.l
Other systems of reward for creativity can be devised, yet the slow,
difficult process of international negotiation has not yet even been set in
motion. It would be far better to expend effort in this direction than to
work out stopgap rules for the petty policing of the "rights" of the
obsolescent publishing industry.
Prescott Smith psmith@educ.umass.edu
--Boundary (ID lsIUwxYl6zEGAiXpCWh7RQ)--
Mr. Smith --- careful. I earn my living by what I write. I can see no problem
with signing away my copyright privilege to a scholarly journal and fully
expect to see ejournals/ dominating the academic scene within the next five
years. But the book is still the cheapest, most convenient, self contained
learning center which is portable and requires no power souce. People buy
them and read them, more in America last year than ever before in history.
Oddly enough, books about computers have a wide market. Their authors feel
no obligation to give away their expertise on computer systems, and computer
afficionados will pony up sizable sums of money to buy them.
I think we need to take seriously the archaic copyright laws because they
are as archaic as the bill of rights. We Americans have a streak of
thievery in us. We think nothing of using the xerox, the tape recorder, and
two VCRs in series to pirate the work of others. Faculty members do not
even think twice when they get the local copy store to make "course packets"
and second hand textbook dealers exchange our products and never acknowledge
our involvement. All of this is generating a flood of lawsuits and they
will continue.
I, for one, would prefer to have these issues resolved in the courts. I am
not at all sympathetic to giving away what I get paid for.
I note there is "edu" after your Email address which leads me to believe you
are somehow associated with an institution of higher education. Are you
prepared to teach free? Are you an eleemosynary institution prepared to
give your services to all comers? Consider the impact of your strange
notions. I should poets would welcome them. If you could get poets onto
Email, they would give their works "for free." There is no market for them
otherwise. The rest of us in the publishing business are quite willing to
cooperate with reasonable distribution of materials on-line but we absolutely
demand that our interests be respected.
If you socialize knowledge.... (Fill in what your imagination tells you
will happen next!)
GMP@PSUVM
Gerald M. Phillips (Professor Emeritus)
Speech Communication
Pennsylvania State University
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 08:16:18 U
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Kimberly Parker <kimberly_parker@yccatsmtp.ycc.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Re- Copyright concerns
Reply to: RE>Re: Copyright concerns
I don't mind a wider discussion if no one else does. Anything I get personally
that I don't see on the list, I will try to summarize and repost after a few
weeks.
--Kim
--------------------------------------
Date: 7/31/92 11:44 AM
To: Kimberly Parker
From: Publishing E-Journals : Publis
John Garrett in Reston, Va.:
Can I ask you to suggest to the publishers on your list to respond to
Kimberly's
query on this VPIEJ-L list? Is that OK Kimberly? I'll bet there are many on
this list who'd be interested in the publisher point of view.
Carl Sandstrom
------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by yccatsmtp.ycc.yale.edu with TCP/SMTP;31 Jul 1992 11:44:40 U
Received: from vtvm1.cc.vt.edu by VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 3330; Fri, 31 Jul 92 11:39:40 EDT
Received: from VTVM1.BITNET by vtvm1.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002) with
BSMTP id 3522; Fri, 31 Jul 92 11:39:38 EDT
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 11:40:00 EDT
Reply-To:
"Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving, and Access"
<vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
Sender:
"Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving, and Access"
<vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
From: 31SANDSTROM%CUA.BITNET@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU
Subject: Re: Copyright concerns
To: Multiple recipients of list VPIEJ-L <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 13:33:19 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: BILL MCCONNELL <mcconnwf@duvm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Copyrights and profit motive
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 31 Jul 1992 16:30:35 EDT from <pmc@ncsuvm>
John,
I think that many of us can see the day when access to scholarly
material is a seamless process. And I'm glad to see that we are
progressing steadily in that direction, notably with journals
like PMC. If our recent past is a good indication, and I am in
the camp which believes that it is so, this may occur more rapidly
than we currently expect. Let us hope so, for not only is this
medium more time efficient (I see PMC right here as soon as it is
distributed), but this should help our libraries to regain some
of their lost influence over prices.
I suspect one could say this medium will have arrived when ISI
begins to include electronic journals in their Citation databases.
Bill McConnell
Drexel University Library
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 22:13:00 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: MICHAEL STRANGELOVE <441495@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA>
Subject: Postscript Usage
I have put a fair amount of effort into creating a postscipt guide but
am still uncertain as to the extend of postscript as a font. At the
University of Ottawa it is quite easy to retrieve a ps file from the Net
and send it directly to a mainframe printer (and free, at least for a little
while longer). Are there any indications of the extent of this type of
usage of networked postscript files.
Is it reasonable to think that ps is becoming a widespread means of
disseminating and printing networked documents?
Michael Strangelove
Department of Religious Studies
University of Ottawa
BITNET: 441495@Uottawa
Internet: 441495@Acadvm1.Uottawa.CA
S-Mail: 177 Waller, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 CANADA
Voice: (613) 237-2052
FAX: (613) 564-6641
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 08:30:45 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Allen Renear, Brown Univ/CIS,
401-863-7312" <allen@brownvm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Postscript Usage
1) Postscript *is* a standard means of distributing documents -- or at
least images of documents -- over the network. Hardly a day goes
by that I don't grab a ps technical report, manual, or
research article from some far-flung server
2) What it does, it does very well. Perhaps faultlessly.
3) However its contribution to the advancement of the use of information
technology is complete and now part of the past. Making ps files
available is generally a smart move, but I hope we agree that
_basing_ an information distribution mechanism on exchanging
postscript files is fundamentally wrong, an imposition of
paper-oriented methodology onto a technology that supports vastly
superior methods for using information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 22:13:00 EDT
>Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
> and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
>From: MICHAEL STRANGELOVE <441495@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA>
>Subject: Postscript Usage
>
>I have put a fair amount of effort into creating a postscipt guide but
>am still uncertain as to the extend of postscript as a font. At the
>University of Ottawa it is quite easy to retrieve a ps file from the Net
>and send it directly to a mainframe printer (and free, at least for a little
>while longer). Are there any indications of the extent of this type of
>usage of networked postscript files.
>
>Is it reasonable to think that ps is becoming a widespread means of
>disseminating and printing networked documents?
>
>
>Michael Strangelove
>Department of Religious Studies
>University of Ottawa
>
> BITNET: 441495@Uottawa
> Internet: 441495@Acadvm1.Uottawa.CA
> S-Mail: 177 Waller, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 CANADA
> Voice: (613) 237-2052
> FAX: (613) 564-6641
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 09:50:26 -0800
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Czeslaw Jan Grycz,
University of California" <cjg@stubbs.ucop.edu>
Subject: Re: Postscript Usage
>I have put a fair amount of effort into creating a postscipt guide but
>am still uncertain as to the extend of postscript as a font
Michael,
PostScript is not a font, but a descriptor language that instructs the
printer to create a page, including fonts, layout, illustrations, graphs,
etc. There is actually an interesting dichotomy emerging between
PostScript, which is in widespread use, but is evolving and is software
dependent, and SGML tagging, which identifies elements of a manuscript, but
keeps formatting instructions in a separate file altogether.
SGML is by far, the option of choice for those who want to archive files,
who may anticipate subsidiary electronic products on CDs, and who want a
platform independent standard. However, SGML lacks very intuitive and
easy-to-use authoring and tagging tools. On the other hand, PostScript,
even given its limitations, is "built-in" if you will, to a lot of very
useful personal computer programs (especially in the Windows environment,
on Macs, and in NeXt machines.) This ubiquity and ease of use has spawned
a number of interesting related technologies.
For example, I recently caused to be printed, an issue of "The Green
Library Journal," an environmental journal with which I'm associated as
Contributing Editor. The interesting thing was that the journal was
formatted in FrameMaker, and then was sent directly to a printing press,
which - using inkjet technology, converted my PostScript files to printed
and bound copies. Easier techniques involve going from PostScript to
imposed printing plates. (I actually don't remember which way we opted to
go on the Journal - either would have worked fine.)
For network distributable documents, PostScript seems to me to be
non-pareil, due to the ubiquity of PostScript printers, and the ability to
preserve form with one's content in a PostScript file. Furthermore, the
PostScript file provides a certain amount of low-level security, since it
is somewhat difficult to change the file (as opposed, of example, to ASCII
text files.)
Chet
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 18:52:04 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Comments: Resent-From: "Allen Renear, Brown Univ/CIS,
401-863-7312" <allen@brownvm>
Comments: Originally-From: "Allen Renear, Brown Univ/CIS,
401-863-7312" <allen@brownvm.bitnet>
From: "Allen Renear, Brown Univ/CIS,
401-863-7312" <allen@brownvm.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Postscript Usage
[From Bernad Rous]
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
In response to Michael's query whether ps is becoming a widespread means of
electronic document exchange with subsequent options of display and/or
printing: I believe that Postscript has not seen its full development nor
its full deployment. Adobe's efforts on Carousel as well as some other
technology's, like that of Thaumaturgy, are banking on leveraging the
wide usage of Postscript as a page description language to make it in some
measure searchable and editable for the electronic environment.
While I completely agree that this is the WRONG way to go; that it limits
sharply the possibilities of further document processing; that markup
schemes like SGML that are content/structure oriented enable documents
to become LIVE objects in a way that Postscript cannot; nonetheless, I am
not so sure that we will not see an inferior technical solution win the
battle in the medium term for three reasons. First, it solves the display
and printing problems quickly and easily while it will take years for
a generation of display/printing software to evolve that works as easily
with presentation neutral marked up document files (especially those for
compound documents containing display math and graphics). Second, the advent
of ultra high speed networks will significantly reduce the time problem of
transporting those verbose Postscript files over the lines. Third, love of
the printed page (or simply familiarity) and the not insubstantial social,
industrial, and institutional investment in the printed page, may prove
too strong a barrier to convert publication readers into information users.
What do you think Allen?
By the way, Michael, I was confused as to how your query arrived - was it
from you to me, or from a LISTSERV to me? I am replying to you. If you wish
to post my reply on VPIEJ-L, it is alright with me.
Regards,
Bernard Rous
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
1) Postscript *is* a standard means of distributing documents -- or at
least images of documents -- over the network. Hardly a day goes
by that I don't grab a ps technical report, manual, or
research article from some far-flung server
2) What it does, it does very well. Perhaps faultlessly.
3) However its contribution to the advancement of the use of information
technology is complete and now part of the past. Making ps files
available is generally a smart move, but I hope we agree that
_basing_ an information distribution mechanism on exchanging
postscript files is fundamentally wrong, an imposition of
paper-oriented methodology onto a technology that supports vastly
superior methods for using information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 22:13:00 EDT
>Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
> and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
>From: MICHAEL STRANGELOVE <441495@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA>
>Subject: Postscript Usage
>
>I have put a fair amount of effort into creating a postscipt guide but
>am still uncertain as to the extend of postscript as a font. At the
>University of Ottawa it is quite easy to retrieve a ps file from the Net
>and send it directly to a mainframe printer (and free, at least for a little
>while longer). Are there any indications of the extent of this type of
>usage of networked postscript files.
>
>Is it reasonable to think that ps is becoming a widespread means of
>disseminating and printing networked documents?
>
>
>Michael Strangelove
>Department of Religious Studies
>University of Ottawa
>
> BITNET: 441495@Uottawa
> Internet: 441495@Acadvm1.Uottawa.CA
> S-Mail: 177 Waller, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 CANADA
> Voice: (613) 237-2052
> FAX: (613) 564-6641
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 19:34:55 -0400
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Chuck Bacon <crtb@helix.nih.gov>
Subject: Re: Postscript Usage
> SGML is by far, the option of choice for those who want to archive files,
> who may anticipate subsidiary electronic products on CDs, and who want a
> platform independent standard. However, SGML lacks very intuitive and
> easy-to-use authoring and tagging tools. On the other hand, PostScript,
> even given its limitations, is "built-in" if you will, to a lot of very
> useful personal computer programs (especially in the Windows environment,
> on Macs, and in NeXt machines.) This ubiquity and ease of use has spawned
> a number of interesting related technologies.
I don't understand the controversy. SGML is something an author or
publisher does, to indicate intentions. An SGML document is a simple
text file, with inclusions whose meaning is only obvious to one versed
in SGML. I can't quite imagine an SGML previewer.
PostScript is a semi-proprietary way of encoding graphics upon a screen,
whether paper or glass. PostScript is heavily biased toward the specific
graphic called typesetting, but is a versatile graphics language generally.
A PostScript file can be decoded to some degree without a PostScript
interpreter, but contains none of the structure of the original literary
thought.
Neither SGML nor PostScript has any kind of signature, checksum or other
feature which would impair alteration efforts. With a little care, a
PostScript document could easily be altered; the same with SGML.
> For example, I recently caused to be printed, an issue of "The Green
> Library Journal," an environmental journal with which I'm associated as
> Contributing Editor. The interesting thing was that the journal was
> formatted in FrameMaker, and then was sent directly to a printing press,
> which - using inkjet technology, converted my PostScript files to printed
> and bound copies. Easier techniques involve going from PostScript to
> imposed printing plates. (I actually don't remember which way we opted to
> go on the Journal - either would have worked fine.)
Naturally. An appropriate progression would be from SGML to PostScript,
via some as yet undiscussed software. It wouldn't make sense to refer
to a direct SGML to printing engine process.
> For network distributable documents, PostScript seems to me to be
> non-pareil, due to the ubiquity of PostScript printers, and the ability to
> preserve form with one's content in a PostScript file. Furthermore, the
> PostScript file provides a certain amount of low-level security, since it
> is somewhat difficult to change the file (as opposed, of example, to ASCII
> text files.)
The difficulty of altering an ASCII text file has to do with the business
of getting right-flushed text, page numbers and the like to look right.
Exactly the same challenge faces one who wishes to alter a PostScript file.
The only difference might be how obscurely the typesetting software has
encoded its PostScript representation of the text. PostScript is no harder
to learn, say, than Fortran.
> Chet
Chuck Bacon - crtb@helix.nih.gov
ABHOR SECRECY - DEFEND PRIVACY
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 17:05:48 -0800
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Czeslaw Jan Grycz,
University of California" <cjg@stubbs.ucop.edu>
Subject: Re: Postscript Usage
>I don't understand the controversy.
Chuck,
This all started out as a question: "Is PostScript coming around to being
the standard for exchanging documents on the network?"
Most of us seem to agree that it is, but we come to that conclusion with
considerable caution and regret. Postscript does things well; but is - as
yet - unstable; and its future is cloudy.
SGML, on the other hand, promises stability both now and into the future,
but is relatively unusable.
The SGML to PostScript conversion you mention doesn't - so far as I know -
presently exist.
This is not a controversy. It is a dilemma.
Chet
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 07:36:04 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: M Stuart Lynn <msl@cornellc.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Postscript Usage
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue, 4 Aug 1992 18:52:04 EDT from <allen@brownvm>
When I read the Postcript vs SGML argument, it has all the essence of
religious warfare. Each satisfies different needs. They are different
standards or quasi-standards in their own right. Why do we have to
choose? Electronic documents can be distributed in both forms. Each
represents different stages in the chain. STuart
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 09:18:47 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Stu Weibel <stu@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: Postscript Usage
> ...the Postcript vs SGML argument ... has all the essence of
> religious warfare. Why do we have to choose? Electronic documents
> can be distributed in both forms.
We must choose because it has major implications for system design.
What sort of system should be wrapped around the data to make it more
accessible, more manageable, more flexible, independent of platform,
and resistant to obsolesence. Binding data tightly to a particular
page description language seems to be the wrong approach to meeting
these goals.
There is probably not much more than 150 GB of freely ftp'able text
out there on the net today. That's the book-equivalent of a modest
departmental library, and many bookstores are larger. We are
managing under the burden, but not happily. When there is 1000 times
as much (perhaps 5 years from now?), systems that manage collections
(not pages) will be critical for both the end users and those to whom
falls the burden of managing these collections. Choice of data
representation is central to the design and development of such
systems, and thus the battles rage.
Stuart Weibel
OCLC Office of Research
(the other Stuart :)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 09:42:00 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Bill Drew-Serials/Reference Librar. SUNY Morrisville"
<drewwe@snymorva.bitnet>
Subject: 150 GB???
> There is probably not much more than 150 GB of freely ftp'able text
> out there on the net today. That's the book-equivalent of a modest
> departmental library, and many bookstores are larger. We are
> managing under the burden, but not happily. When there is 1000 times
> as much (perhaps 5 years from now?), systems that manage collections
> (not pages) will be critical for both the end users and those to whom
> falls the burden of managing these collections. Choice of data
> representation is central to the design and development of such
> systems, and thus the battles rage.
>
>Stuart Weibel
>OCLC Office of Research
>
>(the other Stuart :)
What is the 150 GB figure based on? I would think that when such a figure is
thrown out that at least the source could be included or how it was arrived at.
8-). Seriously, I would think that it was larger than that. How much has been
converted to electronic format by Project Gutenberg? What about all the RFCs
and other internet documentation? The rate of growth sounds right to me.
Wilfred Drew (Call me "Bill") Serials/Reference/Computers Librarian
State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology
P.O. Box 902; Morrisville, NY 13408-0902
BITNET: DREWWE@SNYMORVA Internet: DREWWE@SNYMORVA.CS.SNYMOR.EDU
Phone: (315)684-6055 or 684-6060 Fax: (315)684-6115
Any opinions expressed here are mine and are subject to change without notice.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 10:05:00 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Susan Hockey <hockey@zodiac.bitnet>
Subject: SGML and PostScript
With electronic texts we are dealing with a medium which we don't
yet fully understand. It's natural to try to mimic print as that is
what we know, but shouldn't we be exploring all the other things
which an electronic text allows us to do? SGML is far better than any
other encoding scheme I have ever seen for handling the intellectual
issues of dealing with electronic texts. Wouldn't it be better to
write software which can handle (and hide from the user) an encoding
scheme which is rich enough to handle a diversity of applications,
rather than develop further something which could be fundamentally
inadequate?
We are really still only at the beginnings of the electronic text era,
but at least we now have 30+ years of experience to build on and that
experience shows that a rich and flexible encoding scheme pays off
in the end in terms of re-usability of the text.
Susan Hockey
Center for Electronic Texts in the Humanities
Rutgers and Princeton Universities
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 10:22:42 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Erik Jul <ekj@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: 150 GB???
In-Reply-To: <9208051343.AA18348@zeus>; from "Bill Drew-Serials/Reference
Librar. SUNY Morrisville" at Aug 5, 92 9:42 am
>
> > There is probably not much more than 150 GB of freely ftp'able text
> > out there on the net today. That's the book-equivalent of a modest
> > departmental library, and many bookstores are larger. We are
> > managing under the burden, but not happily. When there is 1000 times
> > as much (perhaps 5 years from now?), systems that manage collections
> > (not pages) will be critical for both the end users and those to whom
> > falls the burden of managing these collections. Choice of data
> > representation is central to the design and development of such
> > systems, and thus the battles rage.
> >
> >Stuart Weibel
> >OCLC Office of Research
> >
> >(the other Stuart :)
>
> What is the 150 GB figure based on? I would think that when such a figure is
> thrown out that at least the source could be included or how it was arrived
at.
> 8-). Seriously, I would think that it was larger than that. How much has
been
> converted to electronic format by Project Gutenberg? What about all the RFCs
> and other internet documentation? The rate of growth sounds right to me.
>
> Wilfred Drew (Call me "Bill") Serials/Reference/Computers Librarian
> State University of New York College of Agriculture and Technology
> P.O. Box 902; Morrisville, NY 13408-0902
> BITNET: DREWWE@SNYMORVA Internet: DREWWE@SNYMORVA.CS.SNYMOR.EDU
> Phone: (315)684-6055 or 684-6060 Fax: (315)684-6115
> Any opinions expressed here are mine and are subject to change without notice.
>
Stu's 150 GB figure was a reasonable estimation based on data collected by
the OCLC Internet Resources Project. As part of our investigation we
sought to quantify electronic information available via FTP. To do this,
we created a database of the archie FTP site list. (This sets the parameters
of the study.) Using this data, we obtained a recursive listing of every
FTP site. In January 1992 there were 827 sites; in February, 963 (16.44%
growth). In January 1992, there were 2,089,543 files by actual count; in
February, 2,443,845 (16.96% growth). In January, these files contained
101.02 GB of data by actual count; in February, 119.55 (18.34% growth).
OCLC will publish the complete findings of the Internet Resources project
in print and electronic format.
Erik Jul, Communications Manager
Office of Research
OCLC
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 12:02:47 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: M Stuart Lynn <msl@cornellc.bitnet>
Subject: Re: Postscript Usage
In-Reply-To: Message of Wed, 5 Aug 1992 09:18:47 EDT from <stu@oclc.org>
Re Stu Weibel's comment. This seems to imply that there is just one system.
This to me can be taken as a centralist viewpoint (I am not, Stu, suggesting
that you take this viewpoint). This is at variance with a client/server
distributed world and a world in which we separate systems from data.
Furthermore, the amount of storage is an entirely secondary question in the
milieu of exponentially declining costs. Again, as others have pointed out,
Postcript and SGML fulfil entirely different needs, and to impose one is to
ignore a set of needs without reason. I, for one, would be interested in
reaching a consensus of the various needs, where each approach meets needs and
where it doesn't, and where there is overlap.
Stuart Lynn
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 11:31:05 CDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Jim Nelson <jnelson@plains.nodak.edu>
Subject: Re: SGML and PostScript
In-Reply-To: <199208051411.AA29848@plains.NoDak.edu>; from "Susan Hockey" at
Aug
A lurker de-cloaks.....
> Wouldn't it be better to
> write software which can handle (and hide from the user) an encoding
> scheme which is rich enough to handle a diversity of applications,
> rather than develop further something which could be fundamentally
> inadequate?
This sounds like a good idea. I've been stumbling through SGML with a
couple things. Most of the stumbling is because there is minimal SGML
documentation here. Everything I have learned about SGML has been through
looking at someone elses finished document and trying out what I find there.
Some sort of "wrapper" should be possible, and extremely handy.
> We are really still only at the beginnings of the electronic text era,
> but at least we now have 30+ years of experience to build on and that
> experience shows that a rich and flexible encoding scheme pays off
> in the end in terms of re-usability of the text.
One other point: Someone (I forget who) made a point about the amount
of FTPable text and it's growth. I know harddisks are getting cheaper,
but isn't some sort of compression (other than unix's compress or dos's
pkzip or whatever) maybe a good idea? I'm talking about another standard
to go along with SGML, here.
--
Jim, in the Land of the Lost. |Disclaimer: I disclaim nothing.
ObQuote: Do Not Meddle in the Affairs of | However, I claim nothing.
Wizards, For You are Crunchy, |
and Good with Ketchup. |
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 14:11:58 -0400
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Dave Rodgers <dlr@math.ams.com>
Subject: Re: SGML and PostScript
In-Reply-To: <01GN8127M3F6AH30JU@MATH.AMS.COM>; from "Jim Nelson" at Aug 5,
92 11:31 am
> This sounds like a good idea. I've been stumbling through SGML with a
> couple things. Most of the stumbling is because there is minimal SGML
> documentation here. Everything I have learned about SGML has been through
> looking at someone elses finished document and trying out what I find there.
>
Take a look at:
Practical SGML, Eric van Herwijnen, Kluwer
Academic Press, ISBN 0-7923-0635-X
The SGML Handbook, Charles Goldfarb, Oxford,
ISBN 0-19-853737-9
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 14:16:00 -0400
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Dave Rodgers <dlr@math.ams.com>
Subject: Re: SGML and PostScript
In-Reply-To: <01GN8127M3F6AH30JU@MATH.AMS.COM>; from "Jim Nelson" at Aug 5,
92 11:31 am
This sounds like a good idea. I've been stumbling through SGML with a
couple things. Most of the stumbling is because there is minimal SGML
documentation here. Everything I have learned about SGML has been through
looking at someone elses finished document and trying out what I find there.
Also:
Guidelines for the Encoding and Interchange of
Machine-Readable Texts, TEI Initiative.
Susan Hockey is part of that effort and can
supply the particulars. A new version was
or is about to be released.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 14:16:51 -0400
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Drew Burton <drb@math.ams.com>
Subject: SGML and PostScript
In-Reply-To: Jim Nelson's message of 05 Aug 1992 11:31:05 -0500 (CDT)
<01GN8127M3F6AH30JU@MATH.AMS.COM>
For people who would like to know more about SGML, one place to
look is at the site ftp.ifi.uio.no (129.240.64.2). There is a directory
there named SGML which contains a Frequently Asked Questions (filename =
FAQ.0.0) file, a bibliography (filename = bibliography) and lots of other
interesting things.
Drew Burton
American Math. Society
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 11:33:29 -0400
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: Edward Vielmetti <emv@msen.com>
Subject: Re: 150 GB???
ekj@OCLC.ORG (Erik Jul) writes:
: >
: Stu's 150 GB figure was a reasonable estimation based on data collected by
: the OCLC Internet Resources Project. As part of our investigation we
: sought to quantify electronic information available via FTP. To do this,
: we created a database of the archie FTP site list.
The archie list is by no means a complete list. There are several sites
that keep data in near line storage (e.g. on cd-rom) and rotate a new
disk in week by week; archie won't show that. A number of sites are too
small and too new to be noted by the people doing archie database
maintenance; systems that automatically track sites as they are used (e.g.
Vince Cate's "alex" project) run the site counts two or three times as
high as archie.
150 GB is "only" 400 CD-ROMs worth of stuff. Several of the collections
maintained on the net have already been turned into CD-ROM, which you
might reasonably expect to see replicated 100s or 1000s of times and sent
over the world. Usenet news is also being pressed out to CD-ROM, at just
under 1 GB/month. 150 GB is also "only" $300,000 worth of disk at current
prices, or roughly 5 cents per internet user. That sounds way low to me.
: OCLC will publish the complete findings of the Internet Resources project
: in print and electronic format.
Erik, you have to go through a peer review process first before you
publish anything. These numbers, and the conclusions that are being drawn
from them ("size of a small departmental library") do not sound right.
You need to divulge more of these details to the net so that people can
figure out just what exactly it is that you say you're measuruing and see
how that compares with common experience.
I'd be much more happy with a result that said archie measures xxx GB, we
think it has nn% coverage, here's the distribution of site size (n% > 2
GB, n% = 1 GB, ... n% > 500 K), a sample of the unmeasured archie sites
found in alex suggests a mean size of the uncataloged sites at n MB, etc.
The monthly "arbitron" numbers that measure Usenet user populations show
this data, and it seems to be believable or at least justifiable over a
long period of time. Until you come forth with some similar justification
I just don't believe that 150 GB is a defensible number.
Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI 48103 +1 313 998 4562
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 14:53:29 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Stu Weibel <stu@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: Postscript Usage
Stuart Lynn writes:
> This seems to imply that there is just one system.
> This to me can be taken as a centralist viewpoint ....
> This is at variance with a client/server
> distributed world and a world in which we separate systems from data.
I fully endorse the notion of maintaining this separation, and in fact
this is a good reason to reject the use of PostScript as a data
representation language (there are others as well).
It is precisely the need to maintain this separation that makes SGML so
appealing in the long term. At this moment I acknowledge that the
tools necessary to make SGML useful to the end-user are not commonplace
(ok,ok... I admit it... I have even ftp'd PostScript documents
myself ) - I would much rather read a laser-printed postscript page
*on paper* than ASCII on paper, but I would far rather have plain ASCII
on a screen than display postscript (at current screen resolutions).
On the other hand, a database marked up in SGML can be formatted in a
variety of ways that are closely suited to the display device, whether
that be a printer, a glass teletype, or a high resolution workstation
display.
stu
Stuart Weibel
OCLC Office of Research
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 15:13:09 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Erik Jul <ekj@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: 150 GB???
In-Reply-To: <9208051828.AB19957@zeus>; from "Edward Vielmetti" at Aug 5,
92 11:33 am
Ed Vielmetti writes:
> Until you come forth with some similar justification
> I just don't believe that 150 GB is a defensible number.
>
The data I reported derived from empirical analysis. My earlier posting
described the actual byte counts; I neglected, however, to note that much
of the data is compressed. This, of course, significantly increases the
total byte count at the FTP sites analyzed in this study.
Regretfully yours,
Erik
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 15:40:40 CDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Robin Cover <robin@utafll.uta.edu>
Subject: SGML vs PostScript - Dilemma?
I appreciated Chet's characterization of the SGML vs. PostScript issue as
a "dilemma" rather than a "controversy" (Czeslaw Jan Grycz, VPIEJ-L,
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 17:05:48 -0800). Two amendments, however:
(1) Chet paraphrased the question (by Strangelove) as:
> This all started out as a question: "Is PostScript coming around to being
> the standard for exchanging documents on the network?"
**But Michael Strangelove's questions were, literally:
>> Are there any indications of the extent of this type of
>> usage of networked postscript files.
>
>> Is it reasonable to think that ps is becoming a widespread means of
>> disseminating and printing networked documents?
PostScript is *not* a technology for document exchange: document exchange
via PostScript is like "document exchange" via checking out a book in your
public library. You can read it. It's a dead end.
(2) The "dilemma," as Chet framed it:
> Postscript does things well; but is - as yet - unstable; and its future
> is cloudy.
> SGML, on the other hand, promises stability both now and into the future,
> but is relatively unusable.
> This is not a controversy. It is a dilemma.
The dilemma need not fog our reason, clutter our vision, nor impair our
determination to work for a superior technology. If PostScript is
useful today for distribution of read-only views of documents, then it's
OK to use it, so long as we realize its limitations. At the same time,
we should encourage authors, editors and publishers -- especially those
within academia, where the ideals of collaborative research, revisable
text, indexable text, searchable text, etc., etc., form fundamental values
in knowledge representation and information exchange -- to think about the
benefits of long-term investment in superior technologies based upon SGML.
I concur with Allen Renear that PostScript, however useful, is a technology
of the past. Current attempts to extend its life and usage (a la Carousel)
are, I think, more an public menace than anything else: it will seduce
people who don't understand what's wrong with an encoding that knows
nothing about real structure and text object relationships, and as a
"document interchange standard based upon font technology" (so described by
Adobe) it will be a disaster in terms or our real objectives in building
information architectures.
(3) Chuck Bacon (crtb@HELIX.NIH.GOV) then wrote:
> I can't quite imagine an SGML previewer.
Well, you don't have to *imagine* an SGML previewer: you can license any
number of commercial SGML-supporting software systems which include
browsers, and then "view" SGML documents to your heart's content. At that
level, to say "An SGML document is a simple text file, with inclusions
whose meaning is only obvious to one versed in SGML" is irrelevant at best.
What you'd need for a "previewer" is standard DTDs and standard, or user-
configurable stylesheets. Electronic Book Technologies' DynaText is a
premier example of such software, with stylesheet-driven views. It should
be far easier to imagine "an SGML previewer" than imagining how WordPerfect
manages to display proprietary binary gibberish on a computer display.
It is true, as several concede, that SGML tools are still rudimentary by
comparison to the glitzy full-featured WYSIWYG document processing systems.
That's all the more reason for academicians to help invest in the current
efforts to understand the intellectual impoverishment of the paper-only
read-only document, to better understand the nature of an *electronic*
document, and to promote superior technologies like SGML which make the
production of both paper and electronic expressions of structured
information more versatile and economical.
rcc
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Cover BITNET: zrcc1001@smuvm1 ("one-zero-zero-one")
6634 Sarah Drive Internet: robin@utafll.uta.edu ("uta-ef-el-el")
Dallas, TX 75236 USA Internet: zrcc1001@vm.cis.smu.edu
Tel: (1 214) 296-1783 Internet: robin@ling.uta.edu
FAX: (1 214) 709-3387 Internet: robin@txsil.sil.org
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 20:08:35 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: MICHAEL STRANGELOVE <441495@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA>
Subject: Postscript and Wordperfect
In-Reply-To: Message of Tue,
4 Aug 1992 17:05:48 -0800 from <cjg@stubbs.ucop.edu>
My deepest thanks to the many who have reponded to my ps query.
Just a quick note about ps file creation. I used to think that it was
necessary to learn postscript to create a doc in ps. This is not so.
I have found out how to write a formated doc in WordPerfect, with all
sorts of nice fonts, and then have WP translate that doc into a ps file
for the network. The process is quite simple but I run into a number
of awkward steps in a vm/cms mainframe system on the way to a ftp disk.
Michael Strangelove
Department of Religious Studies
University of Ottawa
BITNET: 441495@Uottawa
Internet: 441495@Acadvm1.Uottawa.CA
S-Mail: 177 Waller, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 CANADA
Voice: (613) 237-2052
FAX: (613) 564-6641
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 10:29:38 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Susan Grajek <grajek@yalevm.bitnet>
Subject: publishing graphics
I'm investigating the feasibility of converting an existing paper journal to
electronic form in order to save costs. I'd like to get suggestions from this
group on distributing the journal.
I could follow the model with which I'm most familiar, that of Psycoloquy, and
distribute journal issues via a Listserv and post them as a Usenet newsgroup.
But then what do I do about graphics? Distribute them as separate postscript
files, indicating where they should be inserted in the text? Or should I
store postscript versions of all journal articles that people could ftp to,
and let people do that if they wanted copies of the articles that were
complete with graphics? Any other suggestions?
Susan Grajek
Senior Technical Associate
Office of Academic Computing
Yale School of Medicine
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 17:38:23 GMT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Michael Friedman <mfriedma@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Postscript and Wordperfect
In-Reply-To: MICHAEL STRANGELOVE's message of Wed,
5 Aug 1992 20:08:35 EDT
<9208060024.AA20713@gatekeeper.oracle.com>
From: MICHAEL STRANGELOVE <441495@ACADVM1.UOTTAWA.CA>
Just a quick note about ps file creation. I used to think that it was
necessary to learn postscript to create a doc in ps. This is not so.
Just to make it absolutely clear, the vast majority of people who
create postscript documents don't know postscript.
The vast majority of postscript is generated by computers from more
user friendly formats like your friendly neighborhood word processor.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 21:39:00 -0400
Reply-To: James R Revell Jr <revell@uunet.uu.net>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: James R Revell Jr <revell@ghidra.uu.net>
Subject: Re: 150 GB???
In article <15oscnINN7qp@nigel.msen.com> emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
writes:
} ekj@OCLC.ORG (Erik Jul) writes:
} : Stu's 150 GB figure was a reasonable estimation based on data collected by
} : the OCLC Internet Resources Project.
}
} There are several sites that keep data in near line storage and rotate a
} new disk in week by week; archie won't show that. A number of sites
} are too small and too new to be noted by the people doing archie database
} maintenance
Let's also not forget that a lot the material in most of the large
archives is the same. Furthermore, often a single archive contains
the same material in several different forms.
As a simple example, think of how much archive space is taken up by
different forms of the following three utilities: gnuplot, mush, perl.
They're all likely to be in any archive containing comp.sources.*
groups in several different volumes, and are often also available
complete in *.tar.Z form. There are also places where you may find
precompiled binaries for these utilities.
Excepting a large quantity of actual data which has been sampled,
collected, or experimentally generated, there is a lot less available
on the net than one might think.
To every archive admin I pose this question; given 20 GB of disk and
the rule that you could *absolutely not* have the same material in
multiple forms or resort to basic "data" as I described above, could
you actually use all that space? If so, think of how long it would
take to build this archive without duplicating any material.
--
James Revell Network Services Mgr <revell@uunet.uu.net> /8^{~
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 14:18:20 GMT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: Peter Deutsch <peterd@cc.mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: 150 GB???
In article <15sk7kINN8j0@ghidra.UU.NET> revell@uunet.uu.net (James R Revell Jr)
writes:
>In article <15oscnINN7qp@nigel.msen.com> emv@msen.com (Edward Vielmetti)
writes:
>} ekj@OCLC.ORG (Erik Jul) writes:
. . .
>} There are several sites that keep data in near line storage and rotate a
>} new disk in week by week; archie won't show that. A number of sites
>} are too small and too new to be noted by the people doing archie database
>} maintenance
>
>Let's also not forget that a lot the material in most of the large
>archives is the same. Furthermore, often a single archive contains
>the same material in several different forms.
>
>As a simple example, think of how much archive space is taken up by
>different forms of the following three utilities: gnuplot, mush, perl.
>They're all likely to be in any archive containing comp.sources.*
>groups in several different volumes, and are often also available
>complete in *.tar.Z form. There are also places where you may find
>precompiled binaries for these utilities.
>
>Excepting a large quantity of actual data which has been sampled,
>collected, or experimentally generated, there is a lot less available
>on the net than one might think.
>
>To every archive admin I pose this question; given 20 GB of disk and
>the rule that you could *absolutely not* have the same material in
>multiple forms or resort to basic "data" as I described above, could
>you actually use all that space? If so, think of how long it would
>take to build this archive without duplicating any material.
As another data point on this, consider the "big sites",
like wuarchive. Chris has undertaken to shadow
_everything_ he can find and in so doing has amassed
something on the order of 10s of Gig (I think it's about
20G, but I don't have the exact amount handy). There's a
lot of interesting stuff, but I think I agree that it is
actually not as much as some people think.
Having said that, the _potential_ is tremendous. It's just
that what we have right now is in effect the left-overs
that people share with the net, not a conscious effort to
increase the world's stored knowledge.
- peterd
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 19:04:21 -0400
Reply-To: James R Revell Jr <revell@uunet.uu.net>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: James R Revell Jr <revell@ghidra.uu.net>
Subject: Re: 150 GB???
In article <1992Aug7.141820.16361@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca> peterd@cc.mcgill.ca
(Peter Deutsch) writes:
} As another data point on this, consider the "big sites",
} like wuarchive. Chris has undertaken to shadow
} _everything_ he can find and in so doing has amassed
} something on the order of 10s of Gig (I think it's about
} 20G, but I don't have the exact amount handy).
wuarchive.wustl.edu:/info/du.out indicates it's actually about 5.5 GB as
of this morning [the total given is off, so I added up all the top-level
dir sizes]. That's about what I expected. About 3 GB of that total is
all in wuarchives /mirrors* area
I estimate that all of the "large" popular archives are at least 50%
directly mirrored stuff. I know this is true for ftp.uu.net, which is
at 2.7 GB currently. There will always be a need for major gateways,
like UUNET, to maintain a lot of popular things available elsewhere on
the net in the name of efficiency.
} Having said that, the _potential_ is tremendous. It's just
} that what we have right now is in effect the left-overs
} that people share with the net, not a conscious effort to
} increase the world's stored knowledge.
True. Most of the original materials available on ftp.uu.net comes
from publishing firms or commercial software companies with a desire to
offer some of their material to a large number of folks electronically
(whether UUCP or IP connected, and even those not connected to the net)
Don't forget that majority of software and information out there
today is actually distributed in the name of business and involves some
trade of resources. We're on the brink of the age where a lot of
information (software, support, etc) will be done over the net.
--
James Revell Network Services Mgr <revell@uunet.uu.net> /8^{~
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 17:38:23 GMT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: Edward Vielmetti <emv@msen.com>
Subject: Re: 150 GB???
peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
:
: Having said that, the _potential_ is tremendous. It's just
: that what we have right now is in effect the left-overs
: that people share with the net, not a conscious effort to
: increase the world's stored knowledge.
Not for lack of trying tho - I could easily send you five or ten messages
per month with people saying "we would like to publish more stuff but
there's not enough disk space on line to store it". The big mirror sites
(uunet, wuarchive et al) thus don't see the pressures on disk that they
might, since the sites that feed them are perennially cramped for space.
As to Mr Revell's offer to give away 20 G of disk to anyone who could fill
it with original materials :), I submit that it would be easy to do.
Simply deliver the disk in 50 units of 400 Mb each, and distribute as
needed to "deserving" admins and archivists as spotted on comp.archives
under the condition that they do not use it to mirror existing
collections and that they put the results up for anonymous FTP. Better yet,
seed it as matching funds (dollar for dollar) and you'd get even more
results.
Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI 48103 +1 313 998 4562
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 22:36:27 +1000
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Mail.Delivery.Subsystem@ABN.NLA.GOV.AU
Subject: Returned mail: unknown mailer error 2
----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 ddack,mhenty... unknown mailer error 2
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from [128.173.4.1] by ilms.nla.gov.au (AIX cteamtcp 3.1/UCB 5.61/4.03)
id AA42427; Mon, 10 Aug 92 09:05:30 +1000
Message-Id: <9208092305.AA42427@ilms.nla.gov.au>
Received: from vtvm1.cc.vt.edu by VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
with BSMTP id 7222; Sun, 09 Aug 92 13:45:55 EDT
Received: from VTVM1.BITNET by vtvm1.cc.vt.edu (Mailer R2.08 R208002) with
BSMTP id 0195; Sun, 09 Aug 92 13:45:54 EDT
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 17:38:23 GMT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving, and
Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving, and Access"
<vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: Edward Vielmetti <emv@msen.com>
Subject: Re: 150 GB???
To: Multiple recipients of list VPIEJ-L <vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu>
peterd@cc.mcgill.ca (Peter Deutsch) writes:
:
: Having said that, the _potential_ is tremendous. It's just
: that what we have right now is in effect the left-overs
: that people share with the net, not a conscious effort to
: increase the world's stored knowledge.
Not for lack of trying tho - I could easily send you five or ten messages
per month with people saying "we would like to publish more stuff but
there's not enough disk space on line to store it". The big mirror sites
(uunet, wuarchive et al) thus don't see the pressures on disk that they
might, since the sites that feed them are perennially cramped for space.
As to Mr Revell's offer to give away 20 G of disk to anyone who could fill
it with original materials :), I submit that it would be easy to do.
Simply deliver the disk in 50 units of 400 Mb each, and distribute as
needed to "deserving" admins and archivists as spotted on comp.archives
under the condition that they do not use it to mirror existing
collections and that they put the results up for anonymous FTP. Better yet,
seed it as matching funds (dollar for dollar) and you'd get even more
results.
Edward Vielmetti, vice president for research, Msen Inc. emv@Msen.com
Msen Inc., 628 Brooks, Ann Arbor MI 48103 +1 313 998 4562
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:41:32 -0400
Reply-To: kwan@winthrop.org
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: popwin@UU.PSI.COM
Subject: asis Metro NY Chapter 1992 Fall Semina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following message has been cross-posted to several lists.
Sorry for duplication.
_______________________________________________________________
ASIS METRO NY CHAPTER 1992 FALL SEMINAR
INFORMATION WITHOUT TOOLS ??
... encompasses the entire spectrum of communication media.
It focuses on the challenge of developing innovative engines to
manipulate, retrieve, and manage the large digitized information
stores that are being created through new and easy media
transformation techniques.
Speakers:
James Anderson
Vice President of Sales, Market Statistics, Inc.
"Ease of Data Base Management in the Demographic World"
Dr. Rudolph M. Bell
Codirector, The Medieval & Early Modern Data Bank
Rutgers University
"The Banking of History"
Dr. Dennis Egan
Director, Information Science Research, Bellcore
"Creating and Using the CORE Electronic Library"
Colin McQuillan
Manager, GE Investments Research Library
"Optical Information Systems: Image Or Reality?"
Terry Russo
Research Associate
Paintings Conservation Dept., Metropolitan Museum of Art
"Electronic Imaging in Paintings Conservation at the Metropolitan
Museum"
Dr. Jocelyn Penny Small
Manager, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae
Rutgers University
"The US Database of Classical Iconography: Issues of Simplicity
and Complexity in Design"
Dr. Jane Stone
Collections Infromation Systems Manager
Metropolitan Museum of Art
"Essential Elements of Text-based Museum Collections Information
Systems"
DATE: SEPT 11, 1992 (FRIDAY)
TIME: 10:00 A.M. - 4:00 P.M.
LOCATION: IBM BUILDING
590 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK CITY
(NE CORNER OF 57TH & MADISON)
Mail Reservations: At the Door:
----------------- -----------
Members $60.00 $70.00
Non-members $75.00 $90.00
Students $25.00 $30.00
(Lunch is included)
Mailed reservations are encouraged. No cash at the door.
Please make checks payable to - asis Metro NY - and forward with
the registration form by August 28 to:
Joe DeFalco
c/o asis Metro NY Chapter
471 East 16th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11226
(718) 802-2370
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REGISTRATION FROM
Name:___________________________________________________________
Organization:___________________________________________________
Address:________________________________________________________
Phone:______________________ E-Mail:__________________________
ASIS Member __ Non-Member __ Student __
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:27:57 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Tim Arnold <arnold@stat.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Corporate sponsorship?
Of course I know the net can't be used for _commercial_ purposes, but
there still seems to be room for questions:
IF the Public Broadcasting System can accept corporate donations and
put a trailer at the end of a "sponsored" show, like "brought to you
by the Mobile Corporation" (or whatever),
THEN can an electronic journal do essentially the same thing with
"sponsored" articles or even issues?
I'm not trying to find a loophole, but I guess I'm not
even sure about what the spirit of the law is.
Thanks in advance,
Tim Arnold
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Arnold Instructional Computing
Internet: arnold@stat.ncsu.edu North Carolina State Univ.
BITNET : ARNOLD@NCSUSTAT Dept. of Statistics, Raleigh NC 27695
Phone : 919 515 2584 FAX: 919 515 7591
----------------------------------------------------------------------
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:27:00 PST
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Sally Hambridge, SC1-2, 765-2931" <hambridge@sc.intel.com>
Subject: Editor/Publisher Survey
Dear Editors and Publishers of Electronic Journals:
Please take the time to answer the following questions. I have an
interest in finding if there are any similarities in the data from such
disparate communities as you all represent. Note that I am not asking
for information about your subscribers or contributors beyond numbers of
each. If there is sufficient interest in the results, I will summarize for
the list.
Thanks,
Sally
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sally Hambridge Internet:Hambridge@Delphi.Intel.com|
|Intel Corp, SC1-02 Phone: 408/765-2931 |
|3065 Bowers Ave, PO Box 58126 Fax: 408/675-2949 |
|Santa Clara, CA 95052-8126 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Now *here*, you see, it takes all the running *you* can do, to keep in |
| the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at |
| least twice as fast as that!" |
| The Red Queen to Alice, _Through the Looking Glass_ |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============================================================================
EDITOR/PUBLISHER SURVEY
1) How many people are on your subscription list?
2) How large do you think your readership is?
(If, for example, your subscription list includes libraries, do you have a
way of estimating that audience?)
3) How many articles do you publish per issue?
4) How many articles are submitted for consideration for each issue?
5) In general, are the people who submit articles on your subscription
list? Could you estimate a percentage of how many are on the subscription
list?
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 20:38:10 CST
Reply-To: hjacob@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Herbert Jacob <hjacob@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: RE:Editor/Publisher Survey
In Message Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:27:00 PST,
"Sally Hambridge, SC1-2, 765-2931" <hambridge@sc.intel.com> writes:
>Dear Editors and Publishers of Electronic Journals:
>
> Please take the time to answer the following questions. I have an
>interest in finding if there are any similarities in the data from such
>disparate communities as you all represent. Note that I am not asking
>for information about your subscribers or contributors beyond numbers of
>each. If there is sufficient interest in the results, I will summarize for
>the list.
>
>Thanks,
>Sally
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Sally Hambridge Internet:Hambridge@Delphi.Intel.com|
>|Intel Corp, SC1-02 Phone: 408/765-2931 |
>|3065 Bowers Ave, PO Box 58126 Fax: 408/675-2949 |
>|Santa Clara, CA 95052-8126 |
>|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>| "Now *here*, you see, it takes all the running *you* can do, to keep in |
>| the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at |
>| least twice as fast as that!" |
>| The Red Queen to Alice, _Through the Looking Glass_ |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>===============================================================================
>
> EDITOR/PUBLISHER SURVEY
>
>
>1) How many people are on your subscription list? About 500.
>
>
>2) How large do you think your readership is? Somewhat larger since some
subscribers are law libraries (and others) who distribute the journal to
their faculty.
>(If, for example, your subscription list includes libraries, do you have a
>way of estimating that audience?)
>
>
>3) How many articles do you publish per issue? My journal is a book review
journal (Law and Politics Book Review). I publish as many reviews as I
receive each month. Each month is designated as one "issue". The number
varies from one to eight.
>
>
>4) How many articles are submitted for consideration for each issue? I
commission reviews rather than publish unsolicited ones. However, we shall
begin publishing responses and perhaps some unsolicited (but reviewed)
essays.
>
>
>5) In general, are the people who submit articles on your subscription
>list? Could you estimate a percentage of how many are on the subscription
>list? See above.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 08:32:33 U
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: John Saylor <john_saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu>
Subject: Two Issn's for one ejournal
Subject: Two Issn's for one ejournal
As a member of Cornell University's task force on electronic journals, we have
come across two ejournals/ that seem to have more than one issn assigned to them
The ISSN for BMCR according to RLIN's DCLC record:
Bryn Mawr classical review [computer file]. -- Bryn Mawr, PA : Bryn Mawr
College and University of Pennsylvania,
ISSN 1063-2948
LCCN: sn925511
ID: DCLCSN925511-S CC: 9550 DCF: a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DCLC (c-9550 DLC)
The list published on VPIEJ-L gives 1055-7660. The Directory of ejournals/...
2nd ed also gives the 1055-7660 number.
I also found two numbers for Psycoloquy:
Psycoloquy. -- [Washington, D.C. : American Psychological Association,
ISSN 1055-0143
LCCN: sn911698
ID: DCLCSN911698-S CC: 9550 DCF: a
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DCLC (c-9550 DLC)
RLIN say's the above while the other two lists say 1044-0143.
Does anyone know what is going on?
John Saylor
Engineering Librarian
Carpenter Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853 e:John_Saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu
v: (607) 255-4134
f: (607) 255-9606
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:48:02 U
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: John Saylor <john_saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu>
Subject: FWD>BMCR
GatorMail-Q FWD>BMCR
In answer to my question about twoo ISSN's for the Bryn Mawr Classical Review.
Iim asked me to forward his reply to this list -john
--------------------------------------
Date: 8/19/92 9:24 AM
From: James O'Donnell
Received: by qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu (2.01/GatorMail-Q); 19 Aug 92 09:24:43 U
Received: from PENNSAS by PENNSAS.UPENN.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
with BSMTP id 6622; Wed, 19 Aug 92 09:17:46 EST
Message-Id: 19920819.091743.JODONNEL@PENNSAS
Date: 19 Aug 92 09:17:41 EST
From: James O'Donnell <jodonnel@pennsas.upenn.edu>
To: John_Saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu
Subject: BMCR
Bryn Mawr Classical Review appears in paper version and in e-form, and the two
versions differ enough to merit two ISSN's. The e-ISSN is 1063-2948
Jim O'Donnell
Classics, U. of Penn.
e-editor, BMCR
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:11:27 -0400
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "Regina R. Reynolds" <rrey@seq1.loc.gov>
Subject: Re: Two Issn's for one ejournal
As head of the office at the Library of Congress which assigns ISSN, the
National Serials Data Program, I can confirm the fact that Bryn Mawr
Classical Review does have separate ISSN for the paper version and the
electronic version. At the time the two ISSN were assigned the differences
in the two versions were more relevant to the assignment of two numbers
than they will probably be in the future. As a result of a new policy
decided at the meeting of the directors of the International Serials
Data System last fall, publications in different media will be given
separate ISSN. All the implementation details of the new policy are
still being worked out but it is likely that the exception to this policy
will be reproductions such as microform reproductions of paper journals.
These reproductions will probably continue to receive the same ISSN as
the original journal.
As for the question about Psycoloquy, the answer is much more simple.
The correct ISSN is 1055-0143. The other number belongs to a completely
different publication. I will contact the other lists with the correct
ISSN.
Regina Reynolds
Head, National Serials Data Program
Library of Congress
rrey@seq1.loc.gov
phone: (202) 707-6379
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:59:00 EST
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: LIBRARY@STSCI.BITNET
Subject: Re: Two Issn's for one ejournal
and I just realized it was on a list that you get, so you already know!
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 17:07:36 U
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: John Saylor <john_saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu>
Subject: FWD>PSYCOLOQUY's ISSN #
GatorMail-Q FWD>PSYCOLOQUY's ISSN #
FYI - Stevan Harnad's reply to my quesry about the correct ISSN for Psycoloquy.
I gave him the rlg e-mail address. - john
--------------------------------------
Date: 8/21/92 3:01 PM
From: Stevan Harnad
Received: by qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu (2.01/GatorMail-Q); 21 Aug 92 15:01:30 U
Received: from clarity.Princeton.EDU by Princeton.EDU (5.65b/2.93/princeton)
id AA21772; Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:54:45 -0400
Received: from reason.sun4_cogsci (reason.Princeton.EDU) by
clarity.Princeton.EDU (4.1/1.111)
id AA00773; Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:55:20 EDT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:55:20 EDT
From: "Stevan Harnad" <harnad@princeton.edu>
Message-Id: <9208211855.AA00773@clarity.Princeton.EDU>
To: john_saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu
Subject: PSYCOLOQUY's ISSN #
> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 08:32:33 U
> From: John Saylor <john_saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu>
> Subject: Two Issn's for one ejournal
>
> As a member of Cornell University's task force on electronic journals, we
have
> come across two ejournals/ that seem to have more than one issn assigned to
them
>
> I also found two numbers for Psycoloquy:
>
> Psycoloquy. -- [Washington, D.C. : American Psychological Association,
>
> ISSN 1055-0143
> LCCN: sn911698
> ID: DCLCSN911698-S CC: 9550 DCF: a
> DCLC (c-9550 DLC)
> RLIN say's the above while the other two lists say 1044-0143.
> Does anyone know what is going on?
>
-------------------
Dear John,
For PSYCOLOQUY, 1044-0143 is correct. Do you have an email address
where I can send this correction to RLIN?
Best wishes,
Stevan Harnad
Department of Psychology
Princeton University
Princeton NJ 08544
harnad@princeton.edu
609-921-7771
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 15:14:12 -0600
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: "D.OWNES,
LIBRARY AUTOMATION SERVICES-AURARIA LIBRARY 303-556-4067"
<downes@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu>
Subject: Sent back
Hello,
Sorry, i'm not here to answer your mail at this time. I'll be back
June 27, 1992.
Please note, you will recieve this message only one time.
pmcklevie
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 17:12:00 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: wolit@MHUXD.ATT.COM
This is a recording, sent in response to your email message.
I will be away on vacation until Tuesday, September 8.
I will reply to your mail when I return.
You will receive only one copy of this message.
Jan Wolitzky
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 01:10:28 EDT
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad@princeton.edu>
Subject: ISSN erratum
I gave the wrong ISSN number for PSYCOLOQUY. It is
1055-0143 and NOT *1044-0143* -- Apologies, Stevan Harnad, Co-Editor
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:38:49 +0200
Reply-To: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
Sender: "Publishing E-Journals : Publishing, Archiving,
and Access" <vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>
From: Erik Naggum <enag@ifi.uio.no>
Subject: Re: FWD>PSYCOLOQUY's ISSN #
In-Reply-To: <vpiej-l%92082417072166@vtvm1.bitnet> (Mon,
24 Aug 1992 17:07:36 U)
| > I also found two numbers for Psycoloquy:
| >
| > Psycoloquy. -- [Washington, D.C. : American Psychological Association,
| >
| > ISSN 1055-0143
:
| For PSYCOLOQUY, 1044-0143 is correct.
The interesting thing with this typo is that both the right number and
the typo are valid ISSN numbers (i.e. the check digit doesn't catch the
typo).
The algorithm to calculate whether the ISSN number is valid is trivial:
Calculate the sum of the products of the position of the digit (counted
from the right) with the digit itself. If this number is divisible by
11 (no remainder or fraction part), the ISSN number is correct. For
instance, 1044-0143 is 1 * 3 + 2 * 4 + 3 * 1 + 4 * 0 + 5 * 4 + 6 * 4 + 7
* 0 + 8 * 1 = 66 = 6 * 11 + 0. Now, 1055-0143 is also valid, because 5
* 5 + 5 * 6 = 55 and 5 * 4 + 6 * 4 = 44, and their difference is 11 so
the check digit is unaffected. Hmmm.
Best regards,
</vpiej-l%92082417072166@vtvm1.bitnet></enag@ifi.uio.no></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></harnad@princeton.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></downes@cudnvr.denver.colorado.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></john_saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu></harnad@princeton.edu></john_saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></rrey@seq1.loc.gov></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jodonnel@pennsas.upenn.edu></john_saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></john_saylor@qmrelay.mail.cornell.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></hambridge@sc.intel.com></hjacob@casbah.acns.nwu.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></hambridge@sc.intel.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></arnold@stat.ncsu.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></emv@msen.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></emv@msen.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></revell@uunet.uu.net></revell@ghidra.uu.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></revell@uunet.uu.net></peterd@cc.mcgill.ca></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></revell@uunet.uu.net></revell@ghidra.uu.net></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></revell@uunet.uu.net></mfriedma@us.oracle.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></grajek@yalevm.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></cjg@stubbs.ucop.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></robin@utafll.uta.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></ekj@oclc.org></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></stu@oclc.org></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></emv@msen.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drb@math.ams.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></dlr@math.ams.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></dlr@math.ams.com></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></jnelson@plains.nodak.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></stu@oclc.org></msl@cornellc.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></ekj@oclc.org></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></hockey@zodiac.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></drewwe@snymorva.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></stu@oclc.org></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></allen@brownvm></msl@cornellc.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></cjg@stubbs.ucop.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></crtb@helix.nih.gov></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></allen@brownvm.bitnet></allen@brownvm.bitnet></allen@brownvm></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1></cjg@stubbs.ucop.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></allen@brownvm.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></pmc@ncsuvm></mcconnwf@duvm.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu></kimberly_parker@yccatsmtp.ycc.yale.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l%92073108432781@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></harnad@princeton.edu></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet></vpiej-l@vtvm1.bitnet>